Recently Bangladesh was visited by three most important leaders of three countries - Hillary Clinton from America, Pranab Mukherjee from India, and the Deputy Prime Minister from Japan. There was hope that after these visits the volatile political situation of Bangladesh would settle down and the government and main opposition will start fruitful dialogue to solve the political deadlock.
But not even before a month has passed the situation in Bangladesh has erupted and the two main parties have engaged in violent confrontation again. The hope for dialogue which was expressed by the media only a few weeks ago has been dashed. So the question is what next?
Almost all the prominent leaders of the BNP except Khaleda Zia are in jail now. The lower court did not approve their bail and the leaders were sent to prison. In response the BNP observed a day long hartal on the 17 May and there was destruction, looting and arson in the streets of Dhaka again.
The movement centering on the missing of Iliyas Ali was almost subsided but the imprisonment of the BNP leaders has added fuel to fire. The leaders were accused of violence during the previous hartals for Iliyas Ali.
To avoid arrest they absconded but after getting temporary bail from the higher court they followed the instruction of the court to appear before the lower judiciary. But the lower court did not approve their bail
and sent them to prison instead.
and sent them to prison instead.
I have nothing to say about the verdict of the lower court about not granting bail to the opposition leaders. Everybody should obey the court orders, but the political decision of the Awami League Government to harass the opposition is questionable.
If the AL is really interested in political dialogue and to bring back the opposition to the discussion table they could avoid these actions against the BNP and their 18-party alliances leaders. When a democratic government confronts the opposition’s movement not with their political strength but with the coercive power of administration it indicates the weakness of that government, not its strength.
Street violence during a hartal is not a new thing in Bangladesh politics. When the Awami League was in opposition and they called hartal similar things happened and the-then BNP government applied the same coercive force of the administration. Ultimately it did not yield any result.
At present the same policy followed by AL government may halt the opposition’s hostility for the time being but it will surface again with the passing of time and if this confrontation continues the economic loss and political instability may destroy the fragile structure of democracy in Bangladesh.
After the visit of the three foreign leaders when the atmosphere was created for a political dialogue on different issues, including caretaker government, the government should have taken a conciliatory path avoiding the hard line. I do not know when one of our elite classes including the media are proposing and advocating for two-party or all-party discussions to solve various political problems, why they themselves are not taking an active role to pressurize both the sides to sit in a roundtable conference to end the present deadlock in the country.
In the mid 60s when there was war between India and Pakistan then the former Soviet Union intervened and pressurized the leaders of India and Pakistan to sit at a conference at Tashkent to end the war. What is happening in Bangladesh now is almost a war between the two parties and this continuous war is destroying the economic development and the country’s very fragile democratic foundation.
This undemocratic practice and dangerous agitation should be stopped and the political parties in Bangladesh should sit down for a round table conference immediately to solve the problems of the caretaker government, the trial of war criminals and the problems of corruption, terrorism and the ever-increasing social crimes.
Recently Begum Khaleda Zia in her speech in Gazipur said that the AL will not be allowed to come to power for the next forty-two years.
Recently Begum Khaleda Zia in her speech in Gazipur said that the AL will not be allowed to come to power for the next forty-two years.
If the BNP leader claims that she believes in democracy she could not have uttered this sort of threat. In a multiparty democratic system election is held at regular intervals and people decide which party will govern the country. No party can monopolize power for 42 years. Even the dictatorship of Mubarak of Egypt and Gaddafi of Libya did not survive for 42 years.
In Bangladesh no democratic leader can hope that people will allow him/her to rule the country for that long. Neither the BNP nor AL should aspire for this type of prolonged monopoly of power for such a long time. This is a negation of democracy.
Bangladesh should follow the internationally accepted democratic pattern of administration and allow peaceful transfer of power in rotation and in a free and fair election. How the next election will be held, whether under a caretaker or interim government, is not an insoluble problem.
If there is an all-party roundtable conference with the participation of representatives from all professions the question can be decided amicably.
Eminent people like Dr. Yunus or Sir Abed should not go to foreign powers with the internal problems of the country. They can mobilize public opinion with their influence and social standing to pressurize both the main parties to come back to political discussions and to settle their dispute peacefully.
Eminent people like Dr. Yunus or Sir Abed should not go to foreign powers with the internal problems of the country. They can mobilize public opinion with their influence and social standing to pressurize both the main parties to come back to political discussions and to settle their dispute peacefully.
On the other hand, if leaders like Hillary Clinton or Pranab Mukejrjee are really interested in politics and the economic stability of Bangladesh they should bring the two leaders, Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, to the discussion table.
They should play the role like the Soviet leaders did when they organized the Tashkent Conference between Indian and Pakistani leaders to stop unnecessary bloodshed.
Instead of doing that these leaders come to Bangladesh to fulfill their own territorial interests and to advise the Bangladeshi leaders, which both the parties ignore.
They should play the role like the Soviet leaders did when they organized the Tashkent Conference between Indian and Pakistani leaders to stop unnecessary bloodshed.
Instead of doing that these leaders come to Bangladesh to fulfill their own territorial interests and to advise the Bangladeshi leaders, which both the parties ignore.
Bangladesh is now going through a very difficult phase of its existence. With the change of world situation if we cannot change ourselves and adopt the policy which can solve both our internal and external problems, then a very bleak future is awaiting us.
There is still time. There is a shadow of a cold war between two emerging superpowers: China and India. If Bangladesh wants to survive in this conflict and keep its sovereignty safe and sound then there is no alternative to an immediate dialogue between the two main parties.
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন